Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Female owlfly

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2022 at 10:24:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Myrmeleontidae (Antlions and Owlflies)
Info This aerial predator looks a bit like a dragonfly with its net wings wings open and like a moth with its wings closed. The clubbed antennae are the give-away. Both images focus-stacked. No owlfly FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imo this is not a set according to the rules (it's not the same subject nor all possible variations of a particular class of object). --Ivar (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rules carefully and I believe it is. The 'same subject' does not mean the same individual insect. And there are only two variations of how this insect rests. It qualifies under either type 3 or type 4. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment same subject means the same specimen according to your own point of view. Or did you forget? And insect variation is not how it rests, you should know better.--Ivar (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did think that same specimen was required then, yes, but there has been an extended debate on sets since. On insect variation,what about your caterpillar sets which I think are OK? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this catepillar nomination is not about insect variation, this is the same subject from different viewpoints, rule nr 3. --Ivar (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per set rules and Charles himself from this nomination. --Ivar (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Charles, I'm explaining again: that caterpillar nomination is the nomination of the same subject (or the same insect) from different viewpoints, rule nr 3. Your set has not the same insect. --Ivar (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain IMHO they are great photos but as I am fairly new to FP nominations I do not know about the background and previous examples for these sorts of images. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extraordinary about this pic IMO. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you have the wrong nomination? These are two pics, both extraordinary. I guess we need to clearly agree on the rules for sets. I think when it's obviously two different individuals, it doesn't look like a set. These two individuals look similar enough that I could think they were the same. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: it's clear, that this set has different individuals and Charles doesn't deny it. For example compare the yellow dots on the back. --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just looked through the rules for set nominations. The relevant one appears to be "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints". Your point is that this is not the same subject. That's a question of interpretation because depending on how one interprets "subject", it could mean individual or species (a species because a subject for a photograph, rather than literally the subject of a photograph, if that makes any sense), and we should establish consistency in how we interpret that if we have not already. But Charlesjsharp, why not nominate both images separately? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: you did agreed already, that a subject is an individual specimen. If we do not agree on that, then the subject could be species, family, order and so on. The result is endless combination, that's why it has to be one individual specimen. --Ivar (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote "we should establish consistency," I didn't mean you and me; I meant all of us. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I agree Ikan Kekek, but not worth fighting here. Have nominated the two images as one composite. I believe the EV is greater this way. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu